Kit Bond

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I reserve the remainder of the time, and I yield the floor.

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, today I rise to introduce a measure on behalf of myself, Senator Ashcroft, and Senator Byrd which would prohibit permanently the use of Federal funds for human cloning research. I am sure most Americans by now have heard about the successful cloning of Dolly, the sheep, by Scottish scientists. Many people are now asking can similar techniques be used to clone a human being? Something that was once thought to be only science fiction is now close to being a reality. With the legislation I introduce today, I intend to make sure that human cloning stays within the realm of science fiction and does not become a reality. The bill that I am introducing with my colleagues today will place a permanent ban on Federal funding for human cloning or human cloning research. We must send a clear signal: Human cloning is something we cannot and should not tolerate. This type of research on humans is morally reprehensible. We should not be creating human beings for spare parts or as replacements. Moreover, a National Institutes of Health human embryo panel noted, ``allowing society to create genetically identical persons would devalue human life by undermining the individuality of human beings.'' In a September 1994 report of the Human Embryo Research Panel, the heading is, ``Research Considered Unacceptable for Federal Funding.'' It said: Four ethical considerations entered into the deliberations of the panel as it determined what types of research were unacceptable for Federal funding: The potential adverse consequences of the research for children, women and men; the respect due the reimplantation embryo; concern for public sensitivities in highly controversial research proposals, and concern for the meaning of humanness, parenthood, and the successions of generations. The President has said we should study the issue. President Clinton has asked a Federal bioethicist board to consider the implications of this research and report back to him within 90 days. I do not think we need to study this. I think we can save the board some effort because the President's own administration has concluded that human cloning was ``research considered unacceptable for Federal funding.'' There are some aspects of life which simply ought to be off limits to science. I think it will be helpful to go through some of the ethical considerations the board looked at. First, they asked: Is it ethical to create genetically identical individuals who can be born at different times? Is it ethical to store a frozen human embryo that is genetically identical to a born child in order to serve as a later source for organ and tissue transplantation; thus treating humans as spare parts? Is it ethical to create a genetically identical child as a replacement in case the first child dies? Again, these are just a sample of the ethical questions the issue poses. The board concluded the analysis by stating: There are broad moral concerns about the deliberate duplication of an individual genome. The notion of cloning an existing human being or of making ``carbon copies'' of an existing embryo appears repugnant to members of the public. Many Members of the panel share this view and see no justification for Federal funding of such research. I also should point out an important distinction with this bill. It is narrowly drafted so that it only affects human cloning research. It does not address the issue of plant and animal cloning research, and it will also allow--and I personally strongly support--NIH to continue its human genome mapping project. I have long been a supporter of biotechnology, genome mapping and manipulation, and even plant and animal cloning. But we can draw a clear line here. For plants and animals, it makes sense to clone your specimens to improve human health and human well-being. But when we are talking about creating an entire human being, identical to another, we are talking about playing God, and that is where we must draw the line. I note, the Vatican and leading ethicists throughout the country have called for a ban on human cloning and human cloning research. I ask unanimous consent that the names of those ethicists and scientists be printed in the Record.

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, it is a pleasure to recognize the Mingo Job Corps Civilian Conservation Center of Puxico, MO, for service to its community. Established in 1965 as a vocational training center for disadvantaged youth, it is one of 30 centers designated by Congress to be a civilian conservation center. Located on the Mingo National Wildlife Refuge, Mingo Job Corps provides a full-time year round residential program which gives students the opportunity to complete their secondary education and acquire a vocational skill. The Mingo Job Corps Center has completed millions of dollars worth of community service projects, such as construction and painting for local schools and museums, and supporting Earth Day and Ecology Day projects. I wish Mingo the best of luck in all future endeavors and continued success in its service to others.

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I wish to announce that the Committee on Small Business will hold a hearing on February 27, 1997, entitled ``S. 208, The HUBZone Act of 1997.'' The hearing will begin at 9:30 a.m. in room 428A of the Russell Senate Office Building. For further information, please contact Paul Cooksey at 224-5175.

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I wish to announce that the Committee on Small Business will hold a hearing on February 26, 1997, entitled ``The President's Fiscal Year 1998 Budget Request for the United States Small Business Administration.'' The hearing will begin at 9:30 a.m. in room 428A of the Russell Senate Office Building. For further information, please contact Louis Taylor at 224-5175.

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I wish to announce that the Committee on Small Business will hold two hearings on February 12, 1997. The first hearing entitled ``Nomination of Aide Alvarez to be Administrator of the United States Small Business Administration'' will begin at 9:30 a.m. The second hearing entitled ``The President's Fiscal Year 1998 Budget Request for the United States Small Business Administration'' will begin at 10:30 a.m. Both hearings will be held, in room 428A of the Russell Senate Office Building. For further information, please contact Louis Taylor at 224-5175.

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I wish to announce that the Committee on Small Business will hold a hearing entitled ``The President's Fiscal Year 1998 Budget Request for the United States Small Business Administration.'' The hearing will be held on Wednesday, February 12, 1997, beginning at 9:30 a.m., in room 428A of the Russell Senate Office Building. For further information, please contact Louis Taylor at 224-5175. committee on small business

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I wish to announce that the Committee on Small Business will hold a hearing entitled ``Nomination of Aida Alvarez to be Administrator of the United States Small Business Administration.'' The hearing will be held on Thursday, February 13, 1997, beginning at 9:30 a.m., in room 428A of the Russell Senate Office Building. For further information, please contact Louis Taylor at 224-5175.

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to be added as a cosponsor and urge my colleagues to vote for the resolution.

Mr. BOND. I thank the Chair.

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, pursuant to the Standing Rule 26, I submit the rules for the Committee on Small Business to be printed in the Congressional Record that was adopted by the committee during its business meeting on January 29, 1997. The rules follow: Rules of the Committee on Small Business 1. general All applicable provisions of the Standing Rules of the Senate and of the Legislative Reorganization Act of 1946, as amended, shall govern the Committee. 2. meeting and quorums (a) The regular meeting day of the Committee shall be the first Wednesday of each month unless otherwise directed by the Chairman. All other meetings may be called by the Chairman as he deems necessary, on 3 days notice where practicable. If at least three Members of the Committee desire the Chairman to call a special meeting, they may file in the office of the Committee a written request therefor, addressed to the Chairman. Immediately thereafter, the Clerk of the Committee shall notify the Chairman of such request. If, within 3 calendar days after the filing of such request, the Chairman fails to call the requested special meeting, which is to be held within 7 calendar days after the filing of such request, a majority of the Committee Members may file in the Office of the Committee their written notice that a special Committee meeting will be held, specifying the date, hour and place thereof, and the Committee shall meet at that time and place. Immediately upon the filing of such notice, the Clerk of the Committee shall notify all Committee Members that such special meeting will be held and inform them of its date, hour and place. If the Chairman is not present at any regular, additional or special meeting, the Ranking Majority member present shall preside. (b)(1) A majority of the Members of the Committee shall constitute a quorum for reporting any legislative measure or nomination. (2) One-third of the Members of the Committee shall constitute a quorum for the transaction of routine business, provided that one Minority Member is present. The term ``routine business'' includes, but is not limited to, the consideration of legislation pending before the Committee and any amendments thereto, and voting on such amendments. 132 Congressional Record Sec. 3231 (daily edition March 21, 1986) (3) In hearings, whether in public or closed session a quorum for the asking of testimony, including sworn testimony, shall consist of one Member of the Committee. (c) Proxies will be permitted in voting upon the business of the Committee by Members who are unable to be present. To be valid, proxies must be signed and assign the right to vote to one of the Members who will be present. Proxies shall in no case be counted for establishing a quorum. (d) It shall not be in order for the Committee to consider any amendment in the first degree proposed to any measure under consideration by the Committee unless thirty written copies of such amendment have been delivered to the office of the Committee at least 24 hours prior to the meeting. This subsection may be waived by the Chairman or by a majority vote of the members of the Committee. 3. HEARINGS (a)(1) The Chairman of the Committee may initiate a hearing of the Committee on his authority or upon his approval of a request by any Member of the Committee. Written notice of all hearings shall be given, as far in advance as practicable, to Members of the Committee. (2) Hearings of the Committee shall not be scheduled outside the District of Columbia unless specifically authorized by the Chairman and the Ranking Minority Member or by consent of a majority of the Committee. Such consent may be given informally, without a meeting. (b)(1) Any Member of the Committee shall be empowered to administer the oath to any witness testifying as to fact if a quorum be present as specified in Rule 2(b). (2) Interrogation of witnesses at hearings shall be conducted on behalf of the Committee by Members of the Committee or such Committee staff as is authorized by the Chairman or Ranking Minority Member. (3) Witnesses appearing before the Committee shall file with the Clerk of the Committee a written statement of the prepared testimony at least 48 hours in advance of the hearing at which the witness is to appear unless this requirement is waived by the Chairman and the Ranking Minority Member. (c) Witnesses may be subpoenaed by the Chairman with the agreement of the Ranking Minority Member or by consent of a majority of the Members of the Committee. Such consent may be given informally, without a meeting. Subpoenas shall be issued by the Chairman or by the Member of the Committee designated by him. A subpoena for the attendance of a witness shall state briefly the purpose of the hearing and the matter or matters to which the witness is expected to testify. A subpoena for the production of memoranda, documents and records shall identify the papers required to be produced with as much particularity as is practicable. (d) Any witness summoned to a public or closed hearing may be accompanied by counsel of his own choosing, who shall be permitted while the witness is testifying to advise him of his legal rights. (e) No confidential testimony taken, or confidential material presented to the Committee, or any report of the proceedings of a closed hearing, or confidential testimony or material submitted voluntarily or pursuant to a supoena, shall be made public, either in whole or in part or by way of summary, unless authorized by a majority of the Members of the Committee. 4. SUBCOMMITTEES The Committee shall not have standing subcommittees. 5. AMENDMENT OF RULES The foregoing rules may be added to, modified or amended; provided, however, that not less than a majority of the entire Membership so determine at a regular meeting with due notice, or at a meeting specifically called for that purpose.

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, today I introduce the HUBZone Act of 1997. The purpose underlying this bill is to create new opportunities for growth in distressed urban and rural communities, which have suffered tremendous economic decline. This legislation would provide for an immediate infusion of cash through the creation of new jobs in our Nation's economically distressed areas. During the 8 years I served as Governor of Missouri, I met frequently with community leaders who were seeking help in attracting business and jobs to their cities, their central downtown areas, their towns, and the rural areas of the State. We tried various programs, including the enterprise-zone concept, and we met with limited success. I am proud of the successes that we achieved there. But now, as U.S. Senator and as chairman of the Committee on Small Business, I continue to receive similar pleas for help. I hear the concerns expressed to me by people from all over my State. Since we have had the opportunity to expand hearings in other States, we have heard from other States as well. So far, nothing that we put in place is the best formula for bringing economic hope and independence to these communities. The message, however, has changed somewhat. Although help from the Federal Government has been forthcoming, there is still high unemployment and poverty. For example, when I was talking about a summer jobs program with one very, very good community leader, he told me that the summer jobs program was nice, but, he said, ``Stop sending me job training money. What we need right here in this part of the city is jobs, and more jobs. We have all the job training money we need. We need jobs to put these young people to work.'' And that is a problem that I hear time and time again. Last March, I chaired a hearing before the Committee on Small Business on revitalizing inner cities and rural America and S. 1574, the HUBZone Act of 1996, which is nearly identical to the bill I am introducing today. Testifying before the committee were the cofounder and employees of e.villages, which has established a data management enterprise at Edgewood Terrace, an assisted multifamily housing project right here in Washington, DC. Residents of the housing project have been trained and they have established a new enterprise, Edgewood Technology Services, or ETS, which to me is a prototype HUBZone business. The HUBZone Act of 1997 can have an important impact on our Nation's economically distressed inner cities as housing and income subsidies are reduced and put under constraints and as we work toward the national goal of moving people off the welfare rolls and into meaningful jobs. Testifying in support of the HUBZone Act of 1996 was C. Austin Fitts, cofounder of e.villages, who testified about the ``significant relationship between'' S. 1574 and Federal housing policy. Ms. Fitts emphasized the importance of this legislation to create new inner city jobs for unemployed or underemployed residents. The income generated by these new HUBZone jobs can offset the reduction of housing and income supplements. Furthermore, as an employee of ETS testified in support of the HUBZone bill, ``We at e.villages are encouraged that the Congress is trying to find some ways to get work for us to do, and to enhance our standard of living.'' I do not claim that the HUBZone Act of 1997 is going to solve all the problems, but I think it is a significant step in the right direction. These people who benefited from an enterprise started up in an assisted housing development without the benefit of the HUBZone provisions know that their example of success can be expanded. It can work and it can work on a broader basis. And it can bring more and more people into productive employment. What distinguishes the HUBZone Act of 1997 from some other excellent proposals and well-intentioned efforts is that this bill would have an immediate impact on economically distressed communities. In recent years, numerous legislative proposals have stressed the importance of changing the U.S. Tax Code and providing other incentives to attract businesses to the needy communities. Many of these proposals have merit, and I have supported them. As I said, I have supported enterprise zones. I have recommended it to the Missouri General Assembly. As Governor, I signed it into law. I saw it work. I saw it could bring benefits to areas of high unemployment. I urge my colleagues on other committees to take a look at those measures which can have an impact. No one of them is going to be the total solution. Let us move forward on all of them. But I ask my colleagues to focus on the critical differences between those proposals and the provisions of the HUBZone Act of 1997. Under the HUBZone bill, entire communities would benefit because we would create absolute incentives for small businesses to operate and provide employment directly within America's most disadvantaged inner city neighborhoods and in the areas of high unemployment and poverty in rural areas. It is a matter of timing. The HUBZone Act of 1997 helps communities and their residents now. This bill is a matter of direct focus. This is not just incentives; this is bringing business to the areas of high unemployment and high poverty. Specifically, the HUBZone Act of 1997 creates a new class of small businesses eligible for Federal Government contract set-asides and preferences. To be eligible, a small business must be located in what we call a Historically Underutilized Business Zone-- that is where HUBZone comes from, Historically Underutilized Business Zone--and not less than 35 percent of the work force must reside in a HUBZone. That is a key difference between some of the programs that are initially targeting to bring jobs to areas of need, bring jobs where social problems had flared up, such as the Watts riots many years ago. It is important to contrast the HUBZone proposal with the Executive order promulgated by President Clinton to establish an empowerment contracting commission. I commend the President for focusing on the value of targeting Federal Government assistance to low-income communities, but I think the program falls short of meeting the goal of helping low-income communities and their residents. For example, under the President's plan, any business, large or small, located in a low- income community, would qualify for a valuable contracting preference, even if it does not employ one resident of the community. This is clearly a major deficiency or loophole when trying to assist the unemployed or underemployed. A further weakness in the President's proposal is the failure to define more clearly criteria which makes a community eligible for this program. Unfortunately, we see the possibility, and it has been set forth in specific detail by the inspector general of HUD, that a lack of objective criteria may invite other influences in the political selection of an area to receive these preferences. We must avoid creating another Federal Government program that ends up helping well-off individuals and companies while failing to have a significant impact on the poor, the unemployed and the underemployed. I think the HUBZone Act of 1997 can and will make a difference. It makes a contracting preference available only if the small business is located in an economically distressed area and employs 35 percent of its work force from a HUBZone. This is a significant difference and one that is clearly designed to help attack deeply seated poverty in too many areas of the United States. To qualify for the program, the small business must certify to the Administrator of the U.S. Small Business Administration that it is located in a HUBZone and will comply with certain rules governing subcontracting. In addition, a qualified small business must agree to perform at least 50 percent of the contract in a HUBZone, unless the terms of the contract require they be located outside the HUBZone. That would happen, for example, with a service contract requiring the small business' employees and workers be present in a Government-owned or leased building. In the latter case, no less than 50 percent of the work must be performed by employees who reside in a HUBZone. Mr. President, the HUBZone Act of 1997 is designed to cut through Government redtape, while stressing a streamlined effort to place Government contracts and new jobs in economically distressed communities. Americans don't want another new law that creates a cottage industry of consultants necessary to fill out Government paperwork for a new Federal program. Many of my colleagues are familiar with SBA's 8(a) Minority Small Business Program and the sometimes cumbersome rules for small businesses seeking to qualify for the program. Typically, an applicant to the 8(a) program has to hire a lawyer to help prepare the application and shepherd it through SBA. The procedure can take months. In fact, Congress was forced to legislate the maximum time the agency could review an application in our last-ditch effort to speed up the process. The HUBZone Act of 1997 is specifically designed to avoid bureaucratic roadblocks that have delayed and discouraged small businesses from taking advantage of Government programs. Simply put, if you are a small business located in a HUBZone and you employ people from a HUBZone, at least 35 percent, then you are eligible. Once eligible, the small business notifies the SBA of its participation in the HUBZone program and is qualified to receive Federal Government contract benefits. My goal is to have new Government contracts being awarded to small businesses in economically distressed communities. Therefore, I have included some fairly ambitious goals for each Government agency to meet. In 1998, 1 percent of the total value of all prime Government contracts would be awarded to small businesses in HUBZones. The goal would increase to 2 percent in 1999, 3 percent in 2000 and 4 percent in the year 2001 and each succeeding year. HUBZone contracting is a bold undertaking. Passage of the HUBZone Act of 1997 will create more hope for inner cities with high unemployment, distressed rural communities where poverty and joblessness reign and have too long been ignored. Most importantly, passage of the HUBZone Act will create hope for hundreds of thousands of underemployed or unemployed who long ago thought our country had given up on them. The hope is tangible; the hope is for jobs and income. I think this bill can deliver. I soon hope to chair additional hearings before the Committee on Small Business on the HUBZone Act of 1997 and the role our Nation's small business community can play in revitalizing our distressed cities and counties. I firmly believe the HUBZone proposal has great merit. I urge my colleagues to study this proposal and give me their comments. I ask for cosponsors and I ask for good ideas. There are many, many ideas which have been incorporated in this bill that were presented to me by colleagues, both on the Small Business Committee and elsewhere. I ask all of my colleagues, particularly if they are concerned about unemployment and underemployment in areas of their States--and I know of very few States that don't have that problem--I ask them to sit down with us and talk about how we can make this a better program. I would like to see it passed. I think it could provide a very significant boost and help get our country on the right track. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill and a section-by- section analysis of the provisions be printed in the Record.

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. BOND. I thank the Chair. (The remarks of Mr. Bond pertaining to the introduction of S. 208 are located in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills and Joint Resolutions.'')

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I wish to announce that the Committee on Small Business will hold a hearing entitled ``Women-Owned and Home- Based Businesses.'' The hearing will be held on Thursday, February 6, 1997, beginning at 9:30 a.m., in room 428A of the Russell Senate Office Building. For further information, please contact Paul Cooksey at 224-5175. committee on agriculture, nutrition, and forestry

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, today I introduce the HUBZone Act of 1997. The purpose underlying this bill is to create new opportunities for growth in distressed urban and rural communities, which have suffered tremendous economic decline. This legislation would provide for an immediate infusion of cash through the creation of new jobs in our Nation's economically distressed areas. During the 8 years I served as Governor of Missouri, I met frequently with community leaders who were seeking help in attracting business and jobs to their cities, their central downtown areas, their towns, and the rural areas of the State. We tried various programs, including the enterprise-zone concept, and we met with limited success. I am proud of the successes that we achieved there. But now, as U.S. Senator and as chairman of the Committee on Small Business, I continue to receive similar pleas for help. I hear the concerns expressed to me by people from all over my State. Since we have had the opportunity to expand hearings in other States, we have heard from other States as well. So far, nothing that we put in place is the best formula for bringing economic hope and independence to these communities. The message, however, has changed somewhat. Although help from the Federal Government has been forthcoming, there is still high unemployment and poverty. For example, when I was talking about a summer jobs program with one very, very good community leader, he told me that the summer jobs program was nice, but, he said, ``Stop sending me job training money. What we need right here in this part of the city is jobs, and more jobs. We have all the job training money we need. We need jobs to put these young people to work.'' And that is a problem that I hear time and time again. Last March, I chaired a hearing before the Committee on Small Business on revitalizing inner cities and rural America and S. 1574, the HUBZone Act of 1996, which is nearly identical to the bill I am introducing today. Testifying before the committee were the cofounder and employees of e.villages, which has established a data management enterprise at Edgewood Terrace, an assisted multifamily housing project right here in Washington, DC. Residents of the housing project have been trained and they have established a new enterprise, Edgewood Technology Services, or ETS, which to me is a prototype HUBZone business. The HUBZone Act of 1997 can have an important impact on our Nation's economically distressed inner cities as housing and income subsidies are reduced and put under constraints and as we work toward the national goal of moving people off the welfare rolls and into meaningful jobs. Testifying in support of the HUBZone Act of 1996 was C. Austin Fitts, cofounder of e.villages, who testified about the ``significant relationship between'' S. 1574 and Federal housing policy. Ms. Fitts emphasized the importance of this legislation to create new inner city jobs for unemployed or underemployed residents. The income generated by these new HUBZone jobs can offset the reduction of housing and income supplements. Furthermore, as an employee of ETS testified in support of the HUBZone bill, ``We at e.villages are encouraged that the Congress is trying to find some ways to get work for us to do, and to enhance our standard of living.'' I do not claim that the HUBZone Act of 1997 is going to solve all the problems, but I think it is a significant step in the right direction. These people who benefited from an enterprise started up in an assisted housing development without the benefit of the HUBZone provisions know that their example of success can be expanded. It can work and it can work on a broader basis. And it can bring more and more people into productive employment. What distinguishes the HUBZone Act of 1997 from some other excellent proposals and well-intentioned efforts is that this bill would have an immediate impact on economically distressed communities. In recent years, numerous legislative proposals have stressed the importance of changing the U.S. Tax Code and providing other incentives to attract businesses to the needy communities. Many of these proposals have merit, and I have supported them. As I said, I have supported enterprise zones. I have recommended it to the Missouri General Assembly. As Governor, I signed it into law. I saw it work. I saw it could bring benefits to areas of high unemployment. I urge my colleagues on other committees to take a look at those measures which can have an impact. No one of them is going to be the total solution. Let us move forward on all of them. But I ask my colleagues to focus on the critical differences between those proposals and the provisions of the HUBZone Act of 1997. Under the HUBZone bill, entire communities would benefit because we would create absolute incentives for small businesses to operate and provide employment directly within America's most disadvantaged inner city neighborhoods and in the areas of high unemployment and poverty in rural areas. It is a matter of timing. The HUBZone Act of 1997 helps communities and their residents now. This bill is a matter of direct focus. This is not just incentives; this is bringing business to the areas of high unemployment and high poverty. Specifically, the HUBZone Act of 1997 creates a new class of small businesses eligible for Federal Government contract set-asides and preferences. To be eligible, a small business must be located in what we call a Historically Underutilized Business Zone-- that is where HUBZone comes from, Historically Underutilized Business Zone--and not less than 35 percent of the work force must reside in a HUBZone. That is a key difference between some of the programs that are initially targeting to bring jobs to areas of need, bring jobs where social problems had flared up, such as the Watts riots many years ago. It is important to contrast the HUBZone proposal with the Executive order promulgated by President Clinton to establish an empowerment contracting commission. I commend the President for focusing on the value of targeting Federal Government assistance to low-income communities, but I think the program falls short of meeting the goal of helping low-income communities and their residents. For example, under the President's plan, any business, large or small, located in a low- income community, would qualify for a valuable contracting preference, even if it does not employ one resident of the community. This is clearly a major deficiency or loophole when trying to assist the unemployed or underemployed. A further weakness in the President's proposal is the failure to define more clearly criteria which makes a community eligible for this program. Unfortunately, we see the possibility, and it has been set forth in specific detail by the inspector general of HUD, that a lack of objective criteria may invite other influences in the political selection of an area to receive these preferences. We must avoid creating another Federal Government program that ends up helping well-off individuals and companies while failing to have a significant impact on the poor, the unemployed and the underemployed. I think the HUBZone Act of 1997 can and will make a difference. It makes a contracting preference available only if the small business is located in an economically distressed area and employs 35 percent of its work force from a HUBZone. This is a significant difference and one that is clearly designed to help attack deeply seated poverty in too many areas of the United States. To qualify for the program, the small business must certify to the Administrator of the U.S. Small Business Administration that it is located in a HUBZone and will comply with certain rules governing subcontracting. In addition, a qualified small business must agree to perform at least 50 percent of the contract in a HUBZone, unless the terms of the contract require they be located outside the HUBZone. That would happen, for example, with a service contract requiring the small business' employees and workers be present in a Government-owned or leased building. In the latter case, no less than 50 percent of the work must be performed by employees who reside in a HUBZone. Mr. President, the HUBZone Act of 1997 is designed to cut through Government redtape, while stressing a streamlined effort to place Government contracts and new jobs in economically distressed communities. Americans don't want another new law that creates a cottage industry of consultants necessary to fill out Government paperwork for a new Federal program. Many of my colleagues are familiar with SBA's 8(a) Minority Small Business Program and the sometimes cumbersome rules for small businesses seeking to qualify for the program. Typically, an applicant to the 8(a) program has to hire a lawyer to help prepare the application and shepherd it through SBA. The procedure can take months. In fact, Congress was forced to legislate the maximum time the agency could review an application in our last-ditch effort to speed up the process. The HUBZone Act of 1997 is specifically designed to avoid bureaucratic roadblocks that have delayed and discouraged small businesses from taking advantage of Government programs. Simply put, if you are a small business located in a HUBZone and you employ people from a HUBZone, at least 35 percent, then you are eligible. Once eligible, the small business notifies the SBA of its participation in the HUBZone program and is qualified to receive Federal Government contract benefits. My goal is to have new Government contracts being awarded to small businesses in economically distressed communities. Therefore, I have included some fairly ambitious goals for each Government agency to meet. In 1998, 1 percent of the total value of all prime Government contracts would be awarded to small businesses in HUBZones. The goal would increase to 2 percent in 1999, 3 percent in 2000 and 4 percent in the year 2001 and each succeeding year. HUBZone contracting is a bold undertaking. Passage of the HUBZone Act of 1997 will create more hope for inner cities with high unemployment, distressed rural communities where poverty and joblessness reign and have too long been ignored. Most importantly, passage of the HUBZone Act will create hope for hundreds of thousands of underemployed or unemployed who long ago thought our country had given up on them. The hope is tangible; the hope is for jobs and income. I think this bill can deliver. I soon hope to chair additional hearings before the Committee on Small Business on the HUBZone Act of 1997 and the role our Nation's small business community can play in revitalizing our distressed cities and counties. I firmly believe the HUBZone proposal has great merit. I urge my colleagues to study this proposal and give me their comments. I ask for cosponsors and I ask for good ideas. There are many, many ideas which have been incorporated in this bill that were presented to me by colleagues, both on the Small Business Committee and elsewhere. I ask all of my colleagues, particularly if they are concerned about unemployment and underemployment in areas of their States--and I know of very few States that don't have that problem--I ask them to sit down with us and talk about how we can make this a better program. I would like to see it passed. I think it could provide a very significant boost and help get our country on the right track. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill and a section-by- section analysis of the provisions be printed in the Record.

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I rise to voice my strong reservations about the administration's foreign policies as we debate the confirmation of Ambassador Madeleine Albright as Secretary of State. Following President Clinton's direction, Ambassador Albright signed the United Nations Rights of the Child Convention, a document which I believe is seriously flawed. As a nation, we hold our children dear. We have established laws on a national level and local levels to adequately protect our children and the rights of our families. The idea that a foreign state or an international federation knows better than we how to raise our children is abhorrent to our very essence. We have engaged in diplomatic and physical conflict with other nations throughout our entire history over just such an issue. The root of all autocratic regimes has been that the state knows best. We cannot, we must not let that idea insinuate itself into how we conduct ourselves as a nation. I am concerned that Ambassador Albright through her vote in the United Nations, may have done just that. Her support of policies which have come dangerously close to relinquishing command of our own troops to United Nations commanders who may or may not share the democratic ethic of our command authority concerned me in the past and concerns me today. The rules under which our troops conduct themselves while assigned to duties with the United Nations places them under extraordinary pressure. Our soldiers are required to make judgments as to appropriateness of orders received by U.N. authorities not only as to their legality but as to whether the commands are in concert with United States policy. We should never place them in such a position, ever. Currently, if the policy of the United States comes into conflict with U.N. orders, it becomes incumbent upon the individual soldier to recognize the conflict and make the proper choice as to whether to follow the order or not. Recently though, to complicate that soldier's responsibility further, U.S. policy shifts have occurred during ongoing operations; peacekeeping mutating to nation building, embargo enforcement un-enforced. Ambassador Albright must not let this happen on her watch. As Secretary of State, Ambassador Albright will be responsible for directing and implementing our foreign policy. I hope that if our stated policy for instance, is to impose an arms embargo on a war torn region that she would neither tacitly approve nor be a part of a plan to approve the introduction of inflammatory religious extremists and the weapons they chose to introduce into the region while hiding that fact from this body, the rest of the Congress or the American people. As Secretary of State she must realize that the sovereignty of the United States can never be made secondary to any country, entity or organization.

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. I thank my friend for his clarifying remarks. Attention Deficit Disorder

Mr. BOND. Would the chairman agree further that the inclusion of this phrase should remove any doubt in any quarters about which aircraft should be procured and under what conditions they should be procured?

Mr. BOND. Would the chairman also agree that these words were included to waive expressly any other statutory language regarding this issue, including sections 137 and 124 of the respective authorization acts? Would the chairman also agree that the conferees agreed that procurement of these T-39N aircraft for undergraduate flight officer training is important for our national security and should occur without further delay?

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I would like to engage my friend and distinguished chairman of the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee in a brief colloquy regarding section 8110 of the Defense Appropriations conference report now before the Senate. Section 8110 governs the procurement by the Navy of T-39N aircraft to conduct undergraduate flight officer training. These aircraft currently are provided to the Navy under a services contract. The Navy needs to acquire these aircraft expeditiously in order to avoid a break in training, and procurement of the T-39N aircraft under the conditions outlined in this section is in the best interests of the Navy and of the taxpayers. In this regard, I understand that some in the Navy need clarification about the conditions regarding this procurement contained in section 137 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1996 and in Section 124 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1997. I would like to provide this clarification by discussing the matter with the Defense Subcommittee chairman. Would the distinguished chairman agree with me that section 8110 states clearly that the procurement of these T-39N aircraft should go forward ``notwithstanding any other provision of law''?

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, as we have launched into the high-pitched rhetoric and the harsh charges and countercharges of the fall political campaign season, I found it very interesting when I heard a sermon preached by Dr. Craig Barnes, the pastor of the National Presbyterian Church, on Sunday. It so happens that his sermon topic was ``Choosing Good Government.'' I asked Dr. Barnes if he would mind if I shared this with my colleagues and with those who are interested, because I think Dr. Barnes laid down some very good principles for people of faith, people who contend they are religious believers, regardless of their particular sect or denomination or even their religion, to consider in choosing those who seek to represent us in November. Dr. Barnes is not one to recommend one party or another or one candidate or another, nor have I heard him in his sermons attempting to influence the choices that those of us in the legislative bodies make when we deal with controversial issues, but I think he had a couple of very good points to consider and to apply based on our tenets, our beliefs and judgment as to how these standards should be applied. He gives us a framework for making the choices that are very important to all of us in this election year because, as he points out, we are subject to the rule of man by reason of the authorization from God for man to establish laws and rules over one another. Dr. Barnes points out that we have to choose a system which is in conformity with God's will if we are to choose a government that is consistent with the principles that have been laid down by our God and by our faith. The two main points that Dr. Barnes makes are, first, to choose God's leader is always to choose godly character. And he points out that we live in an era when character and integrity have sometimes gotten off the table for consideration. You try bringing up an issue like personal morality and they say that is nobody's business. Dr. Barnes points out that as King David discovered, People who do not make good personal choices are compromised in their ability to make good public choices. Biblical leadership is never seen as a job. It is a calling. It is a way of life for which the leader is a symbol. People who choose to live by the Bible,'' or by the other directives that they have receive from that higher being in whom they have belief, ``are given rather clear standards of ethical behavior. Some things are right. Some things are wrong. [It is] not wrong because it is ineffective or unpopular. But [it is wrong] because it isn't the right thing to do. To choose God as your authority is to resist the current privatization of morality and to choose a leader who is clearly trying to be led by God in his or her own life. The second point that Dr. Barnes makes is that choosing a leader is always a choice about a particular vision for our life together. And we have heard lots of talk about vision: Do we have vision in the campaign? What is the vision? We all know the maxim that, ``Without a vision, the people perish.'' But, according to some polls, almost 90 percent of us claim to believe in a God, and to pray. But we seem to be spiritually empty. And the reason we may be that is because we are no longer able to call for the sacrifice or discipline necessary to live by the teachings. We, as Americans, cherish not only our freedom but our vision of life under God. That is what brought the pilgrims and the Puritans here. That was what native Americans and Hispanics had before we came, life under God. Slaves that were dragged here found a vision, that they could build a new life in the Biblical stories of God's deliverance. So those who will now lead us have to offer some vision of our life together. This has to be more than just helping each person to get a piece of the pie. It has to be something that will, again, inspire sacrifice and commitment to the common good, something that will make us refuse to accept ``the way it is said'' and commit ourselves to ``the way it can be.'' Mr. President, I urge my colleagues who may be interested, and anyone else who is concerned about choices we make this fall, to read and ponder this sermon. I ask unanimous consent it be printed in the Record.

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to be permitted to proceed for 5 minutes as if in morning business.